Re: More on digital postage

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 Dale Thorn wrote:

> jim bell wrote:
>
> > But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered
> > if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that
> > somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc.  Having a telephone with a
> > number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion.
> > Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to
> > block unwanted faxes.
> 
> There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone,
> but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home.

Boring but it works: There are plenty of fax-to-PC programs out
there.  Anyone can save *lots* of trees by viewing faxes on the
screen before printing the useful page(s).  Yes, I know, this means
human intervention, but so does crumpling up the ***BUY NOW***
garbage, tossing it at the recycle bin, missing, cursing, etc.

Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put
out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or
fax).  Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? 

Cynthia
===============================================================
                   Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng.
E-mail: cynthb@iosphere.net  | PGP Key:  See Home Page
Home Page:  http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/
Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received.

        Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote:

>Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put
>out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or
>fax).  Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs?

"Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless
words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam."

For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"?

-- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made
to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?)

-- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end?

-- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"?


As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious.
(Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with
people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.)

The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give
power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not.

Not something we should support.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:

 > "Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, 
 > meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled
 > "spam."

The term "spam" has its origins in the well-known Monty Python
Viking sketch, where a diner has breakfast menu offerings such as

          Spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam. 

This sequence of one repeated thing, with an occasional something 
else, reminds us of how our news spool looks after spam has happened. 

> For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"?

> -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made
> to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?)

> -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end?

Calling one person a thousand times is certainly spam.  Calling
a thousand different people is probably "Excessive Multiple Calling",
or some such acronym. 

> -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"?

This is definitely not spam. 

> As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious.
> (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with
> people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.)

If someone is calling me every day, and I ask them nicely to stop, 
continued calling should be illegal harrassment.  If I've never heard
from them before, then a couple unwanted calls aren't a big deal. 

The same principle should apply if someone decides they have a
Constitutional right to bang on my front door at 6 am each and every
morning.

> The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give
> power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not.

> Not something we should support.

I wouldn't mind laws against "repeated unwanted communication."  That
way I decide what is and is not junk, and the perpetrator is on notice
that further waste of my time, fax paper, phone line, or mailbox
space will not be viewed benevolently. 

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"